2001-2002 FACULTY SENATE
OF
California State University, Sacramento
Issue #20
Minutes
December 6, 2001
ROLL CALL [+ indicates alternate]
Present: | Alexander, Amata, Barakatt, Barrick, Bauerly, Bayard, B. Buckley, L. Buckley, Cager, Curiel, Dillon, Elfenbaum, Ettinger, Evaggelopoulos, Evans, Green, Hall, Hreljac, Jaoudi, A. Jensen, Kent, Kornweibel, Krabacher, Lascher, Lee, Leezer, Llamas-Green, +Mejorado, Meyer, Moore, Raingruber, Reihman, +Rodriguez, Roland, Takeuchi, Timmer, Utz, Uwazie, Whitus, Williams |
Absent: | Algert, Banta, Behrman, Brentwood, Driesbach, Dundon, Fitzgerald, Harvey, Hill, Kando, Kearly, Kennedy, Klucas, Klyse, Lagunas-Carvacho, Lund, Moorehead, Peters, Roseberry-McKibbin, Sheppard, Smith, Valadez |
SPECIAL REPORTS
"The CSU at the Beginning of the 21st Century" - 20 minutes [Bob Buckley]
News from Long Beach: The State, the CSU and the Budget, the rewriting of the Master Plan, etc. - 20 minutes
The state’s budget crisis has resulted in our receiving a number of “messages” in the last few weeks from the Governor, the state legislature, and the Chancellor’s Office. These “messages” were questioned and discussed at last week’s annual Academic Conference sponsored by the statewide Academic Senate. Senator Dede Alpert, Faculty Trustee Harold Goldwhite and Chancellor Charles Reed spoke at the Friday’s closing session and spent considerable time answering questions from faculty. There will be a panel presentation and discussion with senators - relating what we know and what we don’t know. The “panelists” will be Bob Buckley, Cristy Jensen, Tom Krabacher and Louise Timmer.
Bob Buckley, Tom Krabacher and Louise Timmer presented this report.
REGULAR AGENDA
FS 01-80/Flr. | MINUTES |
Approval of the Minutes of November 15 (#19), 2001.
Carried.
*FS 01-81/CPC, Ex. | Program Change Proposals - UNDERGRADUATE |
The Faculty Senate recommends approval of program changes shown in Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 Attachment A and the Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 addendum.
Carried unanimously.
*FS 01-82/CPC, Ex. | Program Change Proposals - GRADUATE |
The Faculty Senate recommends approval of program changes shown in Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 Attachment A and the Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 addendum.
Carried unanimously.
*FS 01-83/Ex. | UNIVERSITY ARTP DOCUMENT - POST TENURE REVIEW, EDITORIAL CHANGES TO |
Background: On May 10, 2001, FS 01-33 was approved by the Senate. This legislation moved the responsibility of Post Tenure Review from the purview of the Faculty Policies Committee to the purview of the University ARTP Committee. The "Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty - Guidelines" (Ref: PM 85-06, AS 84-64, PM 88-08, last rev'd October 6, 1988) had been published as a separate document and is located in the University Manual. This Motion (FS 01-83) moves and incorporates, in its entirety, the "Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty - Guidelines" into the University ARTP document. No substantive changes have been made, only the editorial changes indicated by the strikeouts and underlining.
The "Guidelines" have been inserted as Section 9.06 in the University ARTP document. The current Section 9.06, entitled "Performance Review", has been renumbered as 9.07 and the current Section 9.07, entitled "Recommendation Process for Performance Review", has been renumbered as 9.08.
[strikethrough = deletion; underscore = addition]
9.06 Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
The Office of Faculty and Staff Affairs has responsibility for ensuring a department's conformity to University policy on the periodic evaluation of tenured faculty. Should a question of interpretation arise, it shall be brought to the University ARTP
Faculty AffairsCommittee, which retains jurisdiction over matters of policy and interpretation of policy, in the form of recommendations.Individual members of the faculty would always be wise to examine appropriate portions of the University
ManualARTP document and more general policy documents (in this case including the Memorandum of Understanding) to understand the content and the extent of rights and obligations arising under these procedures set forth in this section.
Purpose of Evaluation: To assist tenured faculty members to maintain or improve their teaching effectiveness.
Frequency of Evaluation of Instructional Performance: Tenured faculty shall be evaluated at intervals of no greater than five years. An evaluation for purposes of retention, tenure or promotion shall fulfill the requirement.
Each Academic Dean, as the appropriate administrator, is delegated the responsibility for monitoring the periodic
reviewevaluation of tenured faculty process in his/herschoolcollege and for ensuring that thereviewsevaluations conducted by the faculty committees and department chairs are in compliance with the procedures contained in this policy.
Procedures:
Each tenured faculty member subject to
reviewperiodic evaluation shall be evaluated by an elected peer review committee consisting of at least three tenured full-time department faculty of equal orgreaterhigher rank. A department member scheduled for this evaluation may not serve on any committee to conduct a periodicreviewevaluation of tenured faculty committee during the year in which he/she is subject toreviewevaluation.
The department chair shall not serve on nor meet with the peer review committee but shall will conduct an independent review evaluation and submit a separate evaluation report.
The department shall develop a schedule
of those faculty to be reviewed,in whatspecifying the orderand in which yearof evaluation of tenured faculty from year to year.
State law and University policy guarantee to faculty the right of confidentiality. Consequently, substantive deliberations having to do with periodic
reviewevaluation ofposttenured faculty unit employees shall beareopen only to committee members.
The peer review committee and the department chair shall consider the following subject matter in conducting the reviews:
1) Student evaluations taken since the last
reviewevaluation of the faculty member's performance.2) Signed, written statements from students, and other signed, written statements concerning the faculty member's teaching effectiveness only if the faculty member has been provided an exact copy of each statement at least five days before the
reviewevaluation.3) Material submitted by the faculty member being evaluated. This evidence may include, but not be limited to, the following:
Teaching materials
Curriculum development
Participation in professional meetings
Professional lectures, seminars, workshops
Consultant work
Publications
Leave activities
The faculty member being evaluated shall have the right to meet with the peer review committee prior to the submission of the committee's report.
The faculty member being evaluated shall have the right to meet with the department chair prior to submission of his/her evaluation.
The committee shall prepare a written, signed evaluation report containing an assessment of the evidence. It shall provide a written copy of this report to the faculty member at least five days before the custodian places it in the Personnel Action file.
The department chair shall prepare a written, signed evaluation report containing an assessment of the evidence. He/she shall provide a written copy of this report to the faculty member at least five days before the custodian places it in the Personnel Action file.
The department chair and the chair of the peer review committee shall meet with the faculty member to discuss his/her strengths and weaknesses along with suggestions, if any, for his/her improvement.
The evaluation statements shall be placed in the Personnel Action File. The faculty member shall have
hasthe right to submit written rebuttals to them and these rebuttals shall also be placed in the Personnel Action File.
The Academic Dean shall
willnot normally conduct an evaluation of tenured faculty under these procedures. However, a faculty member may appeal the evaluations of the faculty committee and/or the department chair by requesting, in writing, that the Dean conduct an independentreviewevaluation."
Carried unanimously.
*FS 01-84/CPC, Ex. | JOINT DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN CLINICAL AUDIOLOGY--REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE |
The Faculty Senate recommends approval to negotiate a Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Audiology between CSUS and the University of Nevada, Reno (Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 Attachment B).
Carried unanimously.
INFORMATION:
Senate Home Page: http:/www.csus.edu/acse
Next Meeting: February 14, 2002
Happy Holidays!!
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P.M.
Cheryl Johnson, Secretary
*Presidential approval requested.